Home › Bond Movies › SPECTRE
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Spectre Dvd/Blu-Ray resolution?
Shouldn't the screen size on the Spectre Dvd be bigger than this? I don't have Blu-Ray so i can't compare.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Looks like the still in question is a VLC screen grab which means the resolution is the net result of remapping NSP to SP (while not the most accurate word, you can say that at playback it is "stretched" horizontally).
If you were asking about the aspect ratio, that looks just about right for a nominal 2.35:1 film.
All DVDs are 4:3, that's why they have to be encoded anamorphically so that it fills 16:9
DVD format supports either aspect ratio equally. Player support for both SP and NSP is mandatory.
The native image is 4:3, sorry. The native image of Blu-ray is 16:9.
A DVD labeled as "Widescreen Anamorphic" contains video that has the same frame size in pixels as traditional fullscreen video, but uses wider pixels. The shape of the pixels is called pixel aspect ratio and is encoded in the video stream for a DVD player to correctly identify the proportions of the video. If an anamorphic DVD video is played on standard 4:3 television without adjustment, the image will look horizontally squeezed.
Unlike DVD, Blu-ray supports SMPTE HD resolutions of 720p and 1080i/p with a display aspect ratio of 16:9 and a pixel aspect ratio of 1:1, so widescreen video is scaled non-anamorphically (this is referred to as "square" pixels).
You could argue that NTSC and PAL define a 4:3 image, but while DVD uses those signal formats, it does not define one pixel aspect as "native" and the other as "optional" or "non native": The player HAS to accommodate both aspects (otherwise it cannot have the DVD logo on it).
At no point have I being talking about the player, but what is on the disc itself. NTSC and PAL are colour encoding systems. Native refers to what is on the disc. At no point have I said that a DVD player doesn't accommodate both 4:3 and 16:9 anamorphic (from the original 4:3 image), in fact that's precisely what I've being saying.
It's no different to 35mm film, the film negative is not the aspect ratio of the film (whether that be 2.40:1, 2.56:1 etc.). To display it correctly you need an anamorphic lens.
Anamorphic, 16 x 9, enhanched for widescreen TV's were different slogans manufacturers used to describe that a DVD was also formatted 16 x 9 within the disc. DVD is a 4 x 3 format and including the movie in 16 x 9 on the same disc increased the vertical resolution by 33%. It was a way for manufacturers to increase the quality of the DVD video. There is no need for anamorphic since Blu-ray is high definition 1080P/24 or 1080i/60 or 1080i/50.
480i:
3 x 4 Letter box = 172,800 pixels (360 x 480
16 x 9 anamorphic: = 337,920 pixels (704 x 480)
1080P
HD Blu-ray: = 2,073,600 pixels (1920 x 1080)
You are asserting that the native aspect for NTSC and PAL is 4:3, which it is. No disagreement there. I'm simply pointing out that is not intrinsically the defacto "native" aspect of the DVD format itself. There is no document from the DVD Forum (consortium) or SMPTE rec I am aware of which defines 4:3 as the "primary" or "native" aspect of the DVD media format.
As an aside I have always been against the use of the term anamorphic for DVD. Sounds cool from a marketing perspective but that is a physical/optical process. Digital video data does not actually undergo "squeezing" nor "stretching".
DVD is a 4:3 format, images that are 16:9 without black bars are horizontally compressed into 4:3. Likewise if you wanted to put a 2.35:1 film on a blu ray with no black bars (therefore enhancing the resolution) you would need to compress the 2.35:1 image into 16:9. You can't get a true 16:9 image on a DVD without compressing it.
And yes, it is digitially squeezed and compressed.
See this video - the first step is digital squeezing, but the unsqueezing is done with an anamorphic lens - first step is digital, second step is physical/optical.
Get your facts right.
Think about it: if the video is tagged as 16:9, and you have a 16:9 display device, the player actually does NOTHING to the signal: it just outputs the 720x480/576 as is. No "stretching". If (and only if) the display device is 4:3 does the player have to do something special with a 16:9 DVD (it has to remap the content to a window within the 4:3 raster).
Conversely when the content is 4:3, then the paradigm is reversed: with a 4:3 display device the material is untouched, with 16:9 device it is remapped to a window with the the 16:9 raster.
DVD is a 4:3 format.
It does indeed!
It seems you assume that whatever the aspect ratio works out to with square pixels is somehow the "native" aspect of the format.
Neither 720x480 (NTSC) nor 720x576 (PAL), if square pixel, work out to a 4:3 aspect meaning that, yes, even for 4:3 content DVD uses non-square pixels. Check out ITU-R BT.601-4. If you think 16:9 is "squeezed" on DVD, well, you would have to say 4:3 is too (just to a slightly lower factor). People often quote it (and I am guilty of this) as being square pixel, but its not.
So there is nothing "untrue" about a 16:9 image stored in a 720x480/565 container and flagged with the corresponding pixel aspect.
In that video they are demonstrating the use of a consumer anamorphic lens system which has nothing to do with how content is formatted for DVD. The process they outline in that video involves starting with a 16:9 video (which in and of itself is a perfectly true 16:9 image), they digitally scale it in the Y axis, then optically stretch it in the X axis. Applicable only to scope material delivered in a 16:9 raster. It is a complicated and expensive way of getting a slight gain in image quality, assuming a high quality scaling algorithm, by reclaiming the display device's pixels which would otherwise be wasted on black bars, but again, nothing to do with how content is formatted on DVD.
My facts are 100%. I've given plain, objective explanations of how the DVD Video format is image aspect-ratio agnostic, supporting both 4:3 and 16:9 aspect content equally across both 4:3 and 16:9 display devices, how both 16:9 and 4:3 content use non-square pixels, and how the only difference separating 16:9 and 4:3 content on DVD is the pixel aspect metadata.
Why would you want that? The apect ratio of the film is the same on DVD and Blu-ray at approx. 2.40:1, the way the film was shot. Why would you want to lose some of the image? If you're that bothered about it most TVs will have an aspect ratio setting that will allow you to zoom the image up to 16:9, removing all the black bars. But again, you'd be losing a good amount of the film's image and reducing resolution.
You are a cinematographers nightmare - you want to chop up those perfectly composed shots! Would you do that to a Monet? A Rembrandt?!!!
The picture isn't bigger on your TV, they've just zoomed in to get rid of the black bars, but that means you're missing some of the picture on the left and right. You're actually seeing less information with The World Is Not Enough.
I think that means you're watching it on ITV where they chop half the frame off :( Although surprisingly they did show Casino Royale over Christmas in a ratio approximating it's full 2.40:1 frame.